507 M.E.J. ANESTH 23 (5), 2016

EDITORIAL

NEOSTIGMINE VERSUS SUGAMMADEX FOR REVERSAL OF NEUROMUSCULAR BLOCK

Neostigmine is the classic acetylcholinesterase antagonist, which is widely used for reversal of neuromuscular block of all nondepolarising relaxants. This is a pharmacodynamic effect

secondary to inhibition of the acetylcholine esterase at the neuromuscular endplate, resulting in a subsequent increased and prolonged effect of acetylcholine on the free endplate receptors. That is why, an overdose of nondepolarising muscle relaxant, blocking the entire endplate receptors’

pool cannot be antagonized by neostigmine resulting in the so-called “neostigmine-resistant curarization”.

“Neostigmine-resistant curarization” has been described by Hunter 19561. However, Churchill-Davidson (1959) stressed the fact that there are many causes of prolonged cessation of respiration, and before the term “neostigmine-resistant-curarization” can be accepted, it is first necessary to prove that a neuromuscular block is in fact present, and secondly that neostigmine fails to reverse the block2.

Using the isolated phrenic nerve diaphragm preparation, immersed in Krebs solution. Baraka (1964) demonstrated that there is a ceiling to the maximum reversal capacity of neostigmine. Neostigmine could not reverse neuromuscular block of an overdose of tubocurarine which was added to the perfusion bath3,4. This in-vitro-observation was confirmed in vivo by Baraka (1967) who showed in man that reversal of neuromuscular block by neostigmine depended on the degree of neuromuscular block and the plasma level of tubocurarine at the time of reversal. Neostigmine could not reverse the doses of tubocurarine that are much greater than the blocking dose. In addition, the report showed that the plasma level of tubocurarine following reversal by neostigmine is not significantly different from that observed without neostigmine reversal, suggesting the fact that reversal of nondepolarising block by neostigmine is a pharmacodynamic, and not a pharmacokinetic effect3. This finding has been confirmed by Waser who showed that the radioactive curare concentration in the diaphragm remains the same before and after reversal of neuromuscular block by neostigmine5. That is why, reversal of curare by neostigmine cannot be achieved if the whole endplate receptor pool is occupied by the neuromuscular blocker.

The degree of reversal of nondepolarising neuromuscular block by neostigmine can be monitored by the train-of-four fade (Hassan Ali et al, 1975)6. T-O-F fade ratio <0.7-0.9 is associated with upper airway obstruction, inadequate recovery of pulmonary function, reduced pharyngeal muscle coordination, increased risk of aspiration, and impaired hypoxic ventilation response7.

Because of the possible limitations, and muscarinic side-effects of the pharmacodynamic reversal of neuromuscular block by neostigmine, the possibility of pharmacokinetic reversal by

508 BARAKA

sugammadex (a modified gamma cyclodextrin) has been recently introduced into clinical anesthesiology practice8. As mentioned by Miller9, and Naguib10, the introduction of sugammadex is another milestone in clinical neuromuscular pharmacology, which provides an opportunity to change the practice of anesthesiology.

Sugammadex offers a new approach for reversal of nondepolarising neuromuscular block; it exerts its reversal effect by forming very tight combination in a 1:1 ratio with the steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents (rocuronium > vecuronium > pancuronium) (Bom et al 2002). Intravenous administration of sugammadex during rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade results in a guest-host complex in equilibrium with a very high association rate and very low dissociation rate resulting in rapid removal of free rocuronium from the plasma. This creates a concentration gradient favoring movement of rocuronium from the neuromuscular junction into plasma where it is encapsulated by the free sugammadex molecules. Therefore, the neuromuscular blockade of rocuronium is terminated rapidly by the diffusion of rocuronium away from the neuromuscular junction into the plasma.

In the absence of sugammadex, rocuronium is eliminated mainly by biliary excretion (>75%), and to a lesser extent degree by renal excretion (10%-25%). However, because of the soluble nature of the rocuronium-cyclodextrin complex, urinary excretion becomes the major route of elimination. One of the features that makes sugammadex so different from anticholinesterases is that it takes effect more quickly

and reliably than neostigmine, even when an overdose of the nondepolarising relaxants is occupying the entire endplate receptor pool.

In conclusion, reversal of nondepolarising neuromuscular block by neostigmine is a pharmacody-namic effect secondary to inhibition of the acetylcholine-esterase. The accumulated acetylcholine will act on the free endplate receptors. Thus, an overdose of nondepolarising relaxants blocking the whole receptors’ pool cannot be reversed by neostigmine resulting in the so-called “Neostigmine-resistant curarization”. The advantage of reversal of nondepolarising block by neostigmine is its low cost, and its broad spectrum reversal of all nondepolarising relaxants.

The advantage of sugammadex for reversal of nondepolarising neuromuscular block is the absence of the muscarinic side-effects of neostigmine. Also, it can reverse the neuromuscular, even in the presence of an overdose blocking the whole receptors’ pool. However, the reversal effect of sugammadex is limited to the steroidal neuromuscular blockers such as rocuronium. Also, its cost is much higher than that of neostigmine.

Anis Baraka, MD, FRCA (Hon)

Emeritus Professor of Anesthesiology

American University of Beirut

Beirut - LEBANON

References

1. Hunter Ar: Neostigmine-resistant curarization. Brit Med J; 2:919, 1956.

2. CHurCHill-DAviDson HC: The causes and treatment of prolonged apnea. Anesthesiology; 20:535, 1959.

3. BArAkA A: Factors that influence the action of tubocurarine on neuromuscular transmission. MD Thesis; Cairo University, 1961.

4. BArAkA A: Neuromuscular block in different species. Acta Anaesth Scand; 16:132, 1972.

5. BArAkA A: Irreversible tubocurarine neuromuscular block in the human. Br J Anaesth; 39:891-893, 1967.

6. Ali HH, Wilson rs, sAvArese JJ, kitz rJ: The effect of tubocurarine on indirectly elicited train-of-four muscle response and respiratory

measurements in humans. Br J Anaesth; 47:570-574, 1975.7. erikson lJ: Reduced hypoxic chemosensistivity in partially

paralyzed man. A new property of muscle relaxants? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand; 40:520-523, 1996.

8. Bom A, BrADley m, CAmeron k, et Al: A novel concept of reversing neuromuscular block: Chemical encapsulation of rocuronium bromide by a cyclodextrin-based synthetic host. Angew Chem; 41:266-270, 2002.

9. miller rD: Sugammadex: An opportunity to change the practice of anesthesiology? Anesth Analg; 104:477-478, 2007.

10. nAguiB m: Sugammadex: Another milestone in clinical neuromuscular pharmacology. Anesth Analg; 104:575-581, 2007.

.

References: 1. Talon M. et al., J Burn Care Research 2009; 30: 599-605. 2. MAD (Mucosal Atomization Device) Medical Atomizer in Vitro Spray Characterization, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO, HILTON FINANCIAL DISTRICT HOTEL

PEDIATRIC SEDATION OUTSIDE OF THE OPERATING ROOM

SEPTEMBER 10-11, 2016WEEKEND SEDATION CONFERENCE Expanding All Horizons

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 FULL-DAY SEDATION SYMPOSIUM The Fundamentals Of Sedation: Reviewing The Basics - Bridging The Specialties

FULL-DAY PEDIATRIC SEDATION SIMULATION WORKSHOPS

COURSE DIRECTOR KEIRA P. MASON, MDDIRECTOR, FUNDAMENTALS OF SEDATION SYMPOSIUM

MARK G. ROBACK, MD

DIRECTOR, SEDATION SIMULATION WORKSHOPS

JAMES FEHR, MD

ABSTRACTS DEADLINE

JULY 1, 2016

STEWART L. COHEN, ESQ. A Lawyers Review of Critical Sedation Related Medical Malpractice Cases

STEVEN SHAFER, MDPROFESSOR OF ANESTHESIOLOGY Michael Jackson, Murder, Mayhem and Mystery: The Propofol Quandary

KEYNOTE SPEAKERSJ.R. MARTINEZBEST-SELLING AUTHORSurvival, Strength and Spirit

www.PediatricSedationConference.com